^ 


^^1 


;  ;)*t  - 


M.R.   Vincent 


Exegesis 


BS476 
.V77 


'!..% 


<;vw  .'J'  »* 


BS47G 
Mil 


MiONia  IBIHdWVd 


on 


ySt 


WarfkM  Libre 


EXEGESIS 


Deliveeed  at  the  Opening  of  the  Autumn  Term 
OF  Union  Theologicai.  Seminary 
September  24, 1891 


BY 


MARVIN    R.    VINCENT,    D.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  SACRED  UTERATURE 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1891 


EXEGESIS 


^n  gidclress 

Delivered  at  the  Opening  of  the  Autumn  Term 
OF  Union  Theolo^jical  Seminary 
September  24,1891 


BY 

MAKVIN    E.    VINCENT,    D.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  SACRED  LITERATURE 


NEW   YORK 

CHAELES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 
1891 


L_ 


u 


PEEFATOEY   NOTE. 


In  preparing  this  address  for  publication,  I  have  added 
a  few  notes,  and  have  slightly  expanded  several  sections 
by  the  insertion  of  matter  (chiefly  quotation)  which  stress 
of  time  compelled  me  to  omit  in  delivery.  No  essential 
feature  is  modified. 

M.  R.  V. 

October  8,  1891. 


EXEGESIS. 


I  SHALL  speak  to-day  of  Exegesis,  its  principles,  posi- 
tion and  function,  and  its  errors  and  abuses. 

Wliat  do  we  mean  by  Exegesis  ? 

Literally  it  is  a  leading  forth,  a  leading  of  the  way,  as 
by  a  guide."  It  runs,  therefore,  easily,  into  the  sense  of 
explanation  or  inteiyretation,  by  means  of  Avhich  one  leads 
an  inquirer  to  the  fact  or  truth  of  which  he  is  in  search. 
In  the  twenty-first  of  Acts,  the  Avord  is  used  of  Paul's 
narrating  to  the  elders  at  Jerusalem  what  things  God  had 
wrought  among  the  Gentiles  through  his  ministry,  f  John 
applies  it  in  a  somewhat  startling  way,  which,  neverthe- 
less, is  true  to  its  radical  sense,  when  he  says  that  "  the 
only-begotten  Son  (or  God)  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Eather,  hath  given  an  exegesis  of  Him  ;  "  ;j:  in  other  A\ords, 
hath  declared,  set  forth,  interpreted  Him  to  men,  so  that 
the}'  might  know  the  Father.  Applied  to  a  collection  of 
documents  like  the  Bible,  exegesis  is  a  development  and 
exhibition  of  their  contents  and  meaning  :  the  explanation 
of  the  immediate  and  primary  sense  of  the  Avritings. 

*  e|T)7eo/ia<,  "  to  go  first ;  "  "to  lead  the  way." 
f  i^Tiye'iTo  Ka^'  ey  e/coffTOf,  Acts  xxi.  19, 
X  (Kilvos  (^riyf)<raTo,  John  i.  18. 


6  EXEGESIS. 

In  popular  phraseology,  "  exegesis  "  and  "  exposition  " 
are  used  synonymously  ;  but  in  scholarly  usage  exegesis 
is  distinguished  from  exposition  as  the  scholarly  and 
critical  from  the  popular  process.  Exegesis  belongs  to 
the  study,  exposition  to  the  pulpit  or  Bible-class.  For 
our  present  pui'pose,  however,  the  distinction  is  not  im- 
portant. 

The  word  "  exegesis,"  etymologically  considered,  pre- 
fers a  claim,  which  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  justify,  to 
the  principal  function  in  the  study  of  any  religion 
which  is  identified  with  a  written  revelation.  Exegesis 
leads:  \i 'points  out:  it  tells  the  story:  it  is  the  j^ilot  and 
guide. 

To  Theology,  therefore,  its  relation  is  intimate  and 
vital.  In  the  logical  order,  in  the  order  of  fact,  in  the 
order  of  importance,  exegesis  precedes  Theology.  This 
is  the  logical  consequence  of  the  position  of  the  evangeli- 
cal church  respecting  the  Bible,  namely,  that  the  Bible 
contains  a  divine  revelation  which  is  man's  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.  For  Theology  rests  upon  reve- 
lation. Its  function  is  to  classify  and  systematize  the  ma- 
terial furnished  by  revelation.  Hence  its  corner-stone 
must  be  that  form  of  divine  revelation  which  is  most  full 
and  explicit ;  and  that  form  is  the  written  Word.  The 
Bible  supplies  Theology  Avith  its  principal  materials. 
Luther  indeed  was  right  in  saying  that  "the  Word  of  God 
is  not  in  the  Scriptures  alone.  There  was  a  time  when 
patriarchs  and  prophets  had  no  Old  Testament,  and  when 
saints  and  martyrs  had  no  New  Testament."  Z^^■ingli  was 
right  when  he  said  that  "  he  who  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is 
no  longer  solely  dependent  upon  a  book."     Strictly,  the 


EXEGESIS. 


terms  "Bible"  and  "Word  of  God"  are  not  synonymous. 

The  latter  phrase,  tliough  occm?ring  nearly  live  hundred 

times  in  the  Bible,  is  not  once  applied  to  the  Scriptures.  //  ■  r' 

As  one  has  truthfully  remarked :  "  The  formula  of  the  ^'^^"^'^  j^   j-^y,  ', , 

Reformation    in   its    best  days  was   not    'Scriptura  est  ^(cm^U^  h-^-^ 

Verbum  Dei,'  but  '  Scriptura  complectitur  Verbum  Dei.'  "  i**L^i^/*^        r\ 

Thus  it  stands  in  our  own  Shorter  Catechism.  '^**  ft'^h^'^i 

Nevertheless,  though  Theology  draws  upon  God's  rev-  '   _  \    "  /^ 

elation  in  physical  nature  and  in  the  human  mind,  it  jt^"^  <:  P/'  iy<^' : 
interprets  their  phenomena  in  the  light  of  Scripture.  ,.-,,  /*/■  T-.:  ^^'  '^'^' 
They  pass  through  that  alembic  before  they  go  into  the  ^%m.  /(a*t^*'*^  *-* 
categories  of  Theology.  As  the  distinction  is  really  un-  (jj^-^  *^  ^-pt***  - 
founded  between  natural  and  revealed  religion,  since  all  l^'~<^-  '^  jXT*/ 
natural  religion  is  revealed,  so  natural  Theology  is  not,  ^  ^  ^  r  /  / 
radically,  distinct  from  Theology  as  based  upon  revela-  y''>«-*^  ^  —  ^ 
tion.     Nature,  apart  from  God,  is  a  riddle.     It  is  Script-    ^"^  '^.J^     ■  / 

ure   which   brings  Nature  and   God   together.      Nature  C^^'^M-^^^'^^-^ 
suggests   something   above   and   beyond   itself ;  but  the   "'  /x.  e^  • 

natural  man  gropes  in  vain  after  that  something,  and  ^t^  LX^  /uPi{u>' 
erects  altars  to  the  unknown  God,  until  the  Word  reveals  ^7-;  .  «ji„  ^4-<  ^- 
Him  whom  he  worships  not  knowing  Him.  Scripture  is 
the  lens  Avhich  collects  and  focalizes  the  divine  rays  that 
flash  from  every  part  of  the  visible  creation.  The  phe- 
nomena of  mind,  by  themselves,  provide  no  sufficient  nor 
reliable  data  for  a  theology.  They  do  not  give  us  God. 
Nobody  would  ever  have  devised  the  ontological  argument 
for  the  existence  of  God,  if  God  had  not  been  first  re- 
vealed in  some  other  way.  The  word  co-ordinates  mind 
and  God.  Natural  science  demonstrates  order ;  but  it  is 
from  Scripture  that  we  learn  that  "  order  is  Heaven's  first 
law." 


^ 


8  EXEGESIS. 

It  is,  therefore,  I  repeat,  the  function  of  Theology  to 
take  and  build  with  what  Scripture  gives  her.  Theology 
is  not  a  revelation ;  it  is  a  human  structure,  built  upon 
the  foundation  and  with  the  material  of  a  revelation.  Its 
dicta  are  not  final.  It  systematizes  and  formulates  re- 
vealed truth  as  fast  as  it  is  revealed.  It  throws  its 
details  into  categories,  develops  their  historical  evolution, 
their  relation  and  coherence,  and  deduces  from  them 
statements  of  principles  and  formulas  of  doctrine. 

And  this  is  emphatically  true  of  Theology  at  its  very 
lieai-t.  For  a  true  Theology,  like  Scripture,  is  centred  in 
Jesus  Christ.  He  must  be  the  true  centre  of  Theology, 
because  He  is  the  centre  and  the  key  of  Scripture. 
Here  neither  nature  nor  mind  furnish  Theology  with 
material.  Christ,  as  a  historic  personality,  is  revealed  in 
Scripture  alone.  Nature  provides  no  Redeemer,  suggests 
none.  Christ  cannot  be  evolved  by  any  process  of  pure 
reason.  The  result  of  Hegel's  attempt — "  An  identity  be- 
tween the  kno^Ma  and  the  knowing  " — can  hardly  be  said 
to  be  of  the  nature  of  a  revelation,  if  revelation  means 
"  unveiling."  Christ  is  a  imique,  historic  fact,  whose  rela- 
tions to  God,  and  to  man's  nature,  character,  and  destiny 
are  purely  matters  of  scriptural  revelation.  If  Theology 
deals  with  the  divine-human  personality  of  the  Son  of 
God,  with  His  resurrection,  His  atonement,  His  priest- 
hood. His  judicial  function,  and  with  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  interpreting  Him — it  must  di-aw  on  Script- 
ure. To  eliminate  the  scriptural  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  to  wipe  out  Theology. 

Theology,  thus  primarily  dependent  on  Scripture,  is 
not   infallible.     Its  legitimate  fads  are  eternal  and  im- 


EXEGESIS.  9 

mutable.  Its  dediictiouH  and  cJanHiJication.s  are  not.  Tlie 
Word  is  divine  and  human.  Theology  is  human  ;  divine 
only  as  it  borrows  divinity  from  the  Word.  Based  up- 
on revelation,  it  is  based  upon  a  progressive  revelation. 
Like  every  other  science,  it  must  be  a  progressive  sci- 
ence or  forfeit  the  title.  Its  deductions  and  classifica- 
tions are  affected  by  limitations  of  biljlical  knowledge,  by 
false  principles  of  interpretation,  and  by  faulty  exegesis. 
Therefore,  like  every  other  human  product,  it  requires 
revision  and  correction  from  time  to  time.  New  light  is 
ever  breaking  from  Scripture ;  Theology  must  have  her 
windows  open  and  her  watchmen  upon  her  walls  to  dis- 
cern and  proclaim  it.  The  results  of  progressive  exege- 
sis must  modify  or  correct  such  statements  of  theology 
as  are  not  identified  with  the  eternal,  fundamental  truth 
of  Scripture. 

And  thus,  however  we  may,  for  convenience's  sake,  draw 
the  distinctions  between  exegetical,  historical,  systematic, 
and  practical  Theology,  all  theology  is,  in  its  last  analysis, 
biblical.  No  dogma  is  authoritative  which  is  not  bibli- 
cal. The  first  question  of  Theology  is  a  question  of  in- 
terpretation :  What  saith  the  Word  ? 

There  are  questions  which  properly  belong  to  Theology 
rather  than  to  exegesis ;  yet  some  of  these  questions 
Theology  cannot  answer  without  the  aid  of  exegesis.  If, 
for  example,  a  theory  of  biblical  inspiration  is  to  be  for- 
mulated, that  work  lies  within  the  province  of  Theology 
and  not  of  exegesis.  Yet  here  Theology  is  helj)less  with- 
out exegesis.  If  Scripture  anywhere  expressly  asserts 
its  own  inspiration  or  defines  its  character,  it  is  for  ex- 
egesis to  examine  that  assertion,  and  to  tell  us  precisely 


10  EXEGESIS. 

what  it  means  and  how  much  it  covers.  Again,  a  claim 
may  be  made  for  a  particular  characteristic  of  inspira- 
tion, the  validity  of  which  nothing  but  exegesis  can  de- 
termine. If  it  be  claimed,  for  example,  that  inspiration 
involves  Hteral,  verbal  inerrancy,  the  claim  stands  or  falls 
by  the  tests  of  exegesis  alone.  It  cannot  be  maintained 
on  the  basis  of  any  a  priori  assumption,  such  as  that  in- 
spiration iintst,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  mean  literal 
inerrancy ;  that  God  must  have  given  His  written  revela- 
tion in  inerrant  autographs.  That  is  an  opinion  which  any- 
one has  a  right  to  hold,  but  which  no  one  has  a  right  to  lay 
down  as  a  dogma  or  to  erect  into  a  test  of  orthodoxy,  until 
he  can  j)roduce  the  original,  literally  inerrant  autographs. 
We  are  compelled  to  deal  with  the  Bible  as  we  have  it, 
and  to  form  our  conclusions  about  it  from  ivJiaf  it  is, 
and  not  from  any  assumption  of  what  it  must  have  been. 
Professor  Sanday  well  says  :  "  History  is  stre^^ii  with 
warnings  as  to  the  mistakes  in  which  we  are  involved 
the  moment  we  begin  to  lay  down  what  an  inspired  book 
ought  to  be  and  what  it  ought  not  to  be.  ...  Is 
there  any  better  reason  for  this  than  there  was  for  those 
other  assmnptions  which  Bishop  Butler  showed  to  be  so 
untenable — that  a  revelation  from  God  must  be  universal ; 
that  it  could  not  be  confined  to  an  obsciu'e  and  insignifi- 
cant people ;  that  a  revelation  from  God  must  be  clear ; 
that  it  could  not  be  wrapt  up  in  difficulties  of  interpreta- 
tion ;  that  its  evidence  must  be  certain  and  such  as  should 
leave  no  room  for  doubt  ?  "  All  these  criteria  had  been 
actually  put  forward ;  the  Christian  revelation  had  been 

*  Analogj'  of  Religion,  Part  II.,  Chap.  III. 


Z^tZZ;  c-^^  /^r-^ /^^L^u^  «=^^  d--^^^        '^  ^^/.^^...^W; 
?  >^c.t-«x-/^-^^^  f-^^'  ^  EXEGESIS.  Ci^^  ^  ^  V-  ;<  i,^f6^  -op^^^iZ:^ 

tried  by  tliem  and  fouud  ^vautiug.     No  one  would  think  of  ^      #    ^ 

putting  forward  any  such  criteria  now.  Yet  there  is  no  ^^^^^L^^  "^' 
essential  difference  between  the  claim  which  was  then  *J  ^  ^  '  - 
made  for  the  revelation  itself,  and  the  claim  which  is  still 
made  for  the  book  in  which  that  revelation  is  embodied. 
.  ,  .  It  is  far  better  not  to  ask  at  all  what  an  inspired 
book  ought  to  be,  but  to  content  ourselves  with  the  in- 
quiry what  this  book,  which  comes  to  us  as  inspired,  in 
fact  and  reality  is."  * 

We  must  construct  our  formula  of  inspiration  (if  we 
deem  it  wise  to  attempt  that  task  at  all)  from  an  actual 
and  not  from  an  immjiuary  Bible.  All  that  Ave  can  do  is 
to  study  our  Hebrew  and  Greek  Bibles  in  the  best  texts 
which  critical  scholarship  can  give  us,  and  to  see  for  our- 

*  W.  Sanday,  M.A.,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Dean  Ireland's  Professor  of 
Exegesis  ;  Fellow  of  Exeter  College  Oxford  ;  Preacher  at  AYhltehall. 
"The  Oracles  of  God,"  3d  edition,  pp.  35,  36. 

It  has  been  asked  :  "  Why  raise  this  question  at  all,  and  so  unsettle 
the  Church's  faith  in  the  infallibility  of  Scripture  ?  "  To  this  it  may  be 
answered  :  1st.  That  whatever  temporary  unsettling  may  result  from 
such  discussion,  it  cannot  be  safe  to  allow  any  erroneous  conception 
of  Scripture  to  remain  rooted  in  popular  thought.  3d.  That  the  un- 
settling will  be  more  than  compensated  by  a  true  and  broader  concep- 
tion. 3d.  That  the  question  is  forced  upon  biblical  apologists  by  the 
assailants  of  the  Bible.  4th.  That  a  defence  of  the  Bible  on  untenable 
grounds  is  worse  than  no  defence.  5th.  That  the  attempt  has  been 
made  to  impose  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  inerrancy  of  the  original 
autographs  of  Scripture  as  a  test  of  orthodoxy.  In  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  for  several  successive  years,  this  test  was  applied  to  can- 
didates for  licensure.  The  result  was  to  send  students  to  other  Presby- 
teries or  to  Congregational  associations  for  examination,  and  in  two 
instances  men  of  exceptional  promise  w^ere  lost  to  the  Presbyterian 
ministry,  and  in  one  instance  to  the  ministry  itself,  through  insistence 
upon  this  unjustifiable  and  extra-confessional  test. 


y^*"^^^  selves  whether  the  contents  are  literally  accurate  and  con- 

sistent in  date,  quotation,  and  other  detail.  If,  on  such 
examination,  we  find  errors  or  discrepancies,  exegesis  com- 
pels us  to  abandon,  not  ihefact  of  inspiration,  but  tltat 
jKLvticular  theory  of  inspiration,  and  to  seek  for  another 
which  will  agree  with  the  facts. 

I  shall  surely  not  be  understood  to  say  that  the  pres- 
ence and  the  quality  of  ins^^iration  are  to  be  determined 
by  critical  exegesis  alone.  Inspiration,  however  we  may 
ultimately  define  it,  is  the  inbreathing  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  into  the  writers  of  inspired  Scripture ;  and  the  same 
Spirit  acts  upon  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  readers. 
"  The  anointing  of  the  Holy  One  "  imparts  perception  and 
recognition  of  the  di\dne  quality  of  the  Word.  It  goes 
Avithout  saying  that  no  Christian  student  can  approach 
the  Scrijitures  without  perceiving  that  the  bush  burns  with 
fire ;  that  no  Christian  critic  can  attempt  the  exegesis  of 
Scripture  without  a  consciousness  of  a  power,  a  depth,  an 
energy,  a  verisimilitude,  a  discernment  of  the  thoughts 
and  intents  of  the  heart,  a  spiritual  elevation  and  majesty, 
which  transcend  all  the  results  of  critical  processes  and 
appeal  to  something  far  deeper  than  the  critical  faculty. 
Yet  with  the  hearty  admission  of  all  this,  I  must  affirm 
that  the  validity  and  inspiration  of  Scripture  cannot  be 
determined  by  subjective  tests  alone.  Whatever  impres- 
sion of  divine  quality  the  devout  student  may  receive,  he 
cannot,  he  must  not,  in  simple  loyalty  to  truth,  remit  the 
exercise  of  the  critical  faculty  and  the  diligent  use  of 
critical  appliances. 

I  shall  soon  have  occasion  to  recur  to  this  point,  and 
therefore  leave  it  for  the  present.     Having  spoken  of  the 


EXEGESIS.  13 

relative  position  and  tlif  fmiction  of  exegesis,  let  me  now 
ask  you  to  consider  some  of  its  characteristics. 

A  sound  exegesis  is  necessary  :  it  is  critical :  it  is  pro- 
gressive :  it  is  cuiira/jeous :  it  is  patienf,  modest,  and  can- 
did. 

I. — Exegesis  is  NECEssAitY. 

This  proposition  applies,  not  to  the  Bible  only,  but  to 
all  epoch-making  books  of  remote  ages,  whether  sacred 
or  secular.  We  all  know  the  necessity  in  the  case  of  the 
Greek  and  Roman  classics,  and  of  the  earlier  English  lit- 
erature. However  clear  the  original  sense  may  have  been 
to  the  original  hearers  or  readers,  the  thoughts  of  men 
change  with  the  years,  and  the  same  thought  strikes  at  a 
different  angle  and  is  reflected  from  a  different  surface. 
Ancient  thought  does  not,  at  sight,  co  -  ordinate  itself 
with  the  conclusions,  the  discoveries,  the  knowledge,  the 
points  of  \dew  of  a  later  time.  "Words  do  not  convey  the 
same  meaning  as  'v\'lien  first  uttered.  The  aroma  of  an 
original  partly  exhales  in  translation.  The  setting  of 
phrases  is  lost,  as  the  customs  or  incidents  which  gave 
them  meaning  to  contemporaries  become  obsolete  or  are 
forgotten.  Changes  take  place  even  in  a  li\'ing  language. 
The  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  is  not  the  pui'e  Attic 
of  the  Periclean  age.  The  entrance  of  an  Oriental  influ- 
ence carries  into  the  language  a  new  imagery  and  turns 
its  words  to  new  uses.  The  later  Greek  is  spoken  by 
multitudes  of  men  whose  thought  is  cast  in  a  Semit- 
ic mould ;  so  that,  when  we  read  biblical  Greek,  we 
need  more  than  the  grammar  and  lexicon  which  tell 
us  what  Greek  words  meant  to  Homer  or  Demosthenes 


14  EXEGESIS. 

or  Thucydides.  We  must  discover  what  meaning  those 
same  Greek  words  carried  to  a  Semitic  mind,  and  how 
their  meaning  was  colored  by  passing  into  a  new  moral 
and  religious  atmosphere.  The  same  Greek  word  would 
express  quite  different  moral  conceptions  to  one  whose 
gods  dwelt  on  Olympus,  and  to  one  whose  theistic  ideas 
had  been  shaped  by  Moses  and  the  prophets. 

Similarly,  the  proverb  is  wrought  into  the  popular 
speech  of  every  nation,  and  passes  into  its  current  idiom. 
The  Spanish  idiom,  for  instance,  is  largely  proverbial. 
Cervantes's  celebrated  squire  scarcely  ever  opens  his 
mouth  that  a  proverb  does  not  drop  out.  Shakspeare 
abounds  in  them,  and  Hudibras  cannot  be  understood 
without  a  thorough  familiarity  with  English  proverbial 
literature.  The  Bible  bristles  with  them,  and  they  are 
often  on  the  lips  of  the  Lord  himself.  But  proverbs  turn 
on  familiar  customs,  on  local  usages  and  peculiarities; 
and  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  meaning  of  large  portions 
of  popular  speech  and  literature  become  obscured  with 
the  lapse  of  time.  The  proverb  becomes  bedded  into  the 
idiom  of  the  language,  while  that  in  which  it  originated 
passes  away  and  is  forgotten,  and  so  the  proverb  or  the 
proverbial  idiom  is  an  enigma,  until  the  exegete,  by  trac- 
ing it  to  its  source,  restores  to  it  its  life. 

Wliat  is  true  of  proverbs  is  true  of  idioms  in  gen- 
eral. They  grow  out  of  customs,  traits,  haljits  of  thought 
which  pass  away,  while  the  idiom  sticks.  As  might  he 
supposed,  the  Bible  is  full  of  illustrations  of  this  fact. 
Hebrew  and  Greek  are  dead  languages,  and  multitudes  of 
scriptural  expressions  take  their  rise  in  now  obsolete  and 
forgotten  customs  of  vanished  races.     They  are,  more- 


EXEGESIS.  15 

over,  the  products  of  unscientific  ages.  They  are  too 
narrow  for  the  modern  conceptions  of  the  same  things. 
It  is  not  apparent  to  the  modern  reader  where  they  fit 
into  the  wider  knowledge  and  the  new  mould  of  thought. 
The  exegete  must  discover  the  old  setting.  He  must  ex- 
hibit the  truth  or  the  fact  under  the  forms  in  which  they 
appealed  to  the  hearer  or  reader  of  David's  or  of  Paul's 
day,  and  then  translate  them  into  familiar  forms  of  speech, 
and  show  how  modern  science  and  modem  thought  cor- 
rect or  supplement  them. 

The  range  of  exegesis  is  therefore  enormous.  It  in- 
cludes the  knowledge  of  many  tongues,  of  a  vast  range 
of  history,  of  a  voluminous  literature.  A  book  which  is 
crowded  with  allusions  and  expressions  shaped  by  tlie- 
history  of  extinct  nations,  by  the  religions  and  customs 
of  ancient  tribes,  by  the  topography  and  architecture  of 
vanished  cities,  by  the  local  details  of  countries  changed 
by  years  and  by  successive  conquests,  by  social  usages 
strange  to  modern  life — a  book  which,  in  so  many  cases 
starts  from  stand-points  of  thought  'which  have  shifted, 
sometimes  to  the  very  antipodes,  with  the  progress  of 
knowledge — such  a  book  cannot  be  made  wholly  intelli- 
gible, cannot  be  brought  to  bear  with  its  full  practical 
power,  cannot  appeal  to  the  modem  mind  with  its  full 
vividness,  without  the  aid  of  the  trained  exegete. 

II. — Exegesis  must  be  Critical. 

An  eminent  and  scholarly  living  divine  is  quoted  in  one 
of  the  daily  prints  as  saying :  "  I  see  the  divine  author- 
ship of  the  Bible  as  plainly  as  I  see  the  authorship  of 


16  EXEGESIS. 

God  iu  the  stars  ;  .  .  .  and  when  the  critics  pick 
away  at  the  Bible,  I  say,  '  well,  it  is  no  great  matter :  if 
it  gratifies  them,  it  does  not  hurt  me.  As  long  as  all  the 
universities  in  the  world  combined  are  not  able  to  make 
another  Bible  that  shall  be  so  cosmical  in  its  range  of  ap- 
peal, and  so  mighty  in  its  power  over  men  and  women, 
over  mind  and  heart  and  life,  and  over  the  growing  civil- 
ization itself  to  which  it  ministers,  I  rest  assm-ed  that 
this  is  God's  book  and  not  man's.'  " 

Why  not  ?  Which  one  of  us  would  hesitate  for  a  mo- 
ment to  indorse  that  statement  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the 
power  of  appeal  and  to  the  evidence  of  divinity  residing 
in  the  Bible  itself  ?  No  man  would  feel  tlie  truth  of  that 
utterance  more  keenly,  and  respond  to  it  more  sympa- 
thetically, than  a  devout  critic.  I  apprehend,  indeed,  that 
this  writer's  sense  of  the  direct  appeal  of  the  Bible  is  in- 
tensified by  his  rich  culture  and  wide  biblical  study.  Why 
then  that  side  -  cut  at  the  critics,  that  attitude  of  benig- 
nant tolerance,  as  though  the  critic's  fmiction  were  both 
superfluous  and  contemptible  ;  as  though  the  biblical 
critic  w^ere  a  presumptuous  intruder  into  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  laying  curious  and  profane  hands  upon  the  ark  ? 
Unfortunately  this  is  a  specimen  of  a  large  class  of  utter- 
ances from  the  religious  press  and  from  the  pulpit,  which 
go  to  create  the  popular  impression  that  the  critic  is  the 
enemy  of  Scripture.  Must  it  indeed  be  assumed  that 
the  biblical  critic  is  animated  mainly  or  solely  by  the 
love  of  picking  flaws  ?  Is  the  critic  to  be  placarded  as 
an  intruder  and  his  function  as  gratuitously  assumed? 
Before  I  shall  have  finished,  I  hope  to  show,  by  facts  of 
the  history  of  exegesis,  that  the  biblical  critic  has  been 


EXEGESI^^.  17 

made  a  necessity  by  the  superstition,  the  ignorance,  and 
the  unhallowed  ambition  which  have  applied  the  wrench 
to  Scripture,  and  have  wrested  it  to  the  service  of  ecclesi- 
astical fraud,  spiritual  tyranny,  and  popular  amusement. 
Ah  !  the  critic's  work  is  not  always  the  work  which  the 
critic  himself  courts.  I  have  sometimes  thought  that 
there  was  danger  of  the  Bible  being  spoiled  for  some  of 
us,  as  Milton's  "  Paradise  Lost "  was,  by  our  being  forced 
to  use  it  for  parsing.  I  heard  a  veteran  biblical  critic  say, 
not  three  weeks  ago :  "I  wish  they  would  let  us  preach 
the  tnith  there  is  in  the  Bible,  instead  of  forcing  us  to 
treat  it  critically."  But  the  necessity  of  criticism  lies  in 
the  structiu-e  of  the  Bible  itself.  Its  fimction  is  construc- 
tive no  less  than  destructive.  The  conception  of  the 
biblical  critic  as  a  mere  flaw  -  picker,  is  a  conception  born 
of  ignorance.  The  devout  Christian  criticism  of  the 
present  century,  if  it  be  carefully  studied,  will  be  found 
(so  far  as  it  has  been  destnictive)  to  have  been  a  picking 
of  flaws,  not  in  the  Bible,  but  in  the  monstrosities  of  inter- 
pretation with  which  men  have  overlaid  it.  The  critic's 
work  has  been,  to  an  extent  apj)reciated  only  by  scholars, 
a  clearing  away  of  (Jcbris.  If  men,  imder  the  j^ower  of  a 
mistaken  reverance,  have  claimed  for  the  Bible  what  it 
does  not  claim  for  itself,  they  have  wounded  Truth  in  the 
house  of  her  friends  ;  and  the  critic  is  neither  unneces- 
sary, irreverent,  nor  contemptible,  who,  by  enabling  the 
Bible  to  tell  its  own  story  and  to  voice  its  own  claims, 
heals  the  woimd  and  exposes  the  clumsiness  of  the  hands 
which  have  dealt  it. 

I   repeat,  therefore,  that   a    true   exegesis   is   critical. 
Practically,  criticism  and  exegesis  are  so  bound  up  to- 
2 


18  EXEGESIS. 

getlier  that  it  is  impossible  to  sepai^ate  them.  Exegesis 
can  advance  hardly  a  step  without  applying  the  process- 
es or  the  results  of  criticism.  Its  very  first  question  is 
the  question  of  the  text,  which  is  a  matter  belonging  to 
criticism.  The  Pauline  authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  a  question  of  criticism ;  yet  the  interpreta- 
tion of  a  disputed  passage  in  that  Epistle  may  turn  upon 
whether  the  passage  has  a  Pauline  coloring  and  is  to  be 
considered  from  a  Pauline  standpoint.  Baur's  theory  that 
the  Gospel  of  John  is  a  dogmatic  tendency-document  of 
the  second  century,  will  require  a  very  different  exegesis  to 
that  which  starts  from  the  evangelical  position.  If  the 
book  of  Acts  is  a  conciliatory  treatise  by  a  Paulinist,  writ- 
ten in  order  to  reconcile  the  opinions  of  Paul  and  Peter  ; 
if  the  diary  of  an  unknown  companion  of  Paul  has  been  in- 
corjiorated  into  a  fictitious  narrative,  intended  to  disguise 
the  early  history  of  the  Church,  the  splendid  exegeses  of 
Hackett,  Meyer,  and  Gloag  are  comparatively  useless. 

By  "  criticism  "  I  mean  the  application  of  the  canons  of 
philology,  history,  and  grammar  to  the  determination  and 
interpretation  of  the  Scripture  text.  I  mean  that  the 
same  laws  are  to  be  applied  to  the  Scriptures  as  to  any 
other  book.  The  Bible  comes  to  men  through  the  med- 
ium of  human  speech ;  its  utterances  obey  the  ordinary 
laws  of  language  ;  its  imagery  is  drawn  from  the  familiar 
facts  of  nature  and  of  human  life  ;  its  scientific  state- 
ments are  conditioned  by  the  limitations  of  human 
knowledge  at  the  time  they  were  made  ;  it  is  a  revelation 
given,  as  the  wT.'iter  to  the  Hebrews  says,  "  by  divers  por- 
tions and  in  divers  manners  ; "  *  a  revelation  not  made  all 

*  Heb.  i.  1 :  iroXv/jLepais  Kol  iro\vrp6vus. 


EXEGESIS.  19 

at  ouce,  but  by  a  long  and  gradual  process,  and  through  in- 
dividuals of  different  characters,  attainments,  and  temper- 
aments. Inspiration  does  not  obliterate  these  differences. 
It  does  not  reduce  the  style  of  Scriptui'e  to  a  monotonous 
uniformity.  It  does  not  make  of  the  several  Avriters 
mere  transcribers  of  a  copy  or  literal  reporters  of  a  verbal 
dictation.  Their  peculiar  characteristics  of  mind,  tem- 
perament, and  culture  are  stamped  upon  their  prophecies, 
gospels,  epistles,  and  narratives.  John  differs  from  Paul, 
Paul  from  James,  and  Peter  from  all  three.  The  med- 
ium of  the  revelation,  I  repeat,  is  hjimiin.  It  must  be 
in  order  to  be  intelligible.  A  revelation  through  an  mi- 
intelligible  medium  is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  The 
written  Word,  like  the  personal  Word,  is  "  made  flesh." 
As  there  is  both  a  divine  and  a  human  element  in  the  in- 
carnate Word,  so  the  same  elements  exist  and  demand 
distinct  recognition  in  the  written  Word.  "  The  law,"  as 
Maimonides  said,  "  speaks  in  the  tongues  of  men."  A 
David  or  a  Sampson  may  be  vehicles  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  yet  liable  to  gross  sins.  Light  is  light,  though  it 
come  to  the  eye  through  cracked  or  colored  glass.  Simi 
larly,  the  Spirit  may  speak  through  a  human  writer  with- 
out eliminating  his  human  characteristics.  The  impre- 
catory Psalms  speak  the  language  of  human  passion  ;  the 
vehemence  of  the  apostle  who  cut  off  Malchus'  ear  is  not 
absent  from  his  epistles ;  Paul  betrays  the  influence  of  his 
rabbinical  training  in  the  discussion  of  Christian  themes. 
The  Spirit  utters  heavenly  truth  through  illustrations 
which  appeal  to  human  knowledge  of  every-day  facts ;  the 
truth  is  cast  in  the  mould  of  one  age  or  another,  and 
takes  color  from  its  local  and  temporary  traits,  and  is  ex- 


20  EXEGESIS. 

poimdecl  according  to  its  literary  methods.  The  trans- 
cendent character  of  Scripture,  in  short,  does  not  reside 
in  these  details. 

From  all  this  the  inference  is  inevitable  that  the  reve- 
lation in  Scripture  submits  itself  to  critical  tests  and 
in\ites  them  ;  that  the  human  medium  is  subject  to  ex- 
amination according  to  those  literary,  grammatical,  philo- 
logical, psychological,  and  historical  la"os  which  we  apply 
to  other  human  productions.  In  a  word,  inspiration  can- 
not refuse  the  tests  appropriate  to  those  human  media 
through  which  it  has  chosen  to  transmit  itself. 
_  _  This  is  not  to  say  that  portions  of  Scripture  may  not, 

lU^   1 1  ^ ^^j^  ^  for  the  time,  transcend  the  human  understanding.     Chi'ist 
"^       IaA"^  ^^>r_  did  not  scruple  to  say  to  His  disciples  things  which  they 
A      >   )'«:^l!:i2^^^  ^^i*-!^  iiot  imderstand  at  the  moment.     Revelation  is  very 
J— ^ur^*^  ^    often   germinal.     Exegesis    cannot    explain    ever^-thing. 
^kj--'^'^   ^^      -^^^^  re^:elation  is  meant  to   be,  ultimately,  intelligible  ; 
^  and  we  are  not  passively  to  accept  enigmas  on  the  as- 

sumption that  inspiration  is  essentially  oracular  and 
vague.  "  It  is  the  spirit  that  is  in  man,  and  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Almighty  Avhich  giveth  him  understanding.'"  * 
Bevelation  is  unveiling ;  and  while  we  must  sometimes 
frankly  admit  and  face  the  inexplicable,  while  the  veil 
sometimes  resists  the  human  hand,  far  oftener  it  jdelds  to 
the  touch  of  reverent  criticism.  Beneath  her  veil  Truth 
beckons  ;  and  for  criticism  to  refuse  her  in^dtation  is  as 
foolish  as  to  refuse  to  cut  the  emerald  or  the  diamond  be- 
cause God  has  enwrapped  them  with  hard  ciiists. 

Equally  there  is  a  divine  element  in  Scripture,     This 
Avill  not  yield  uj)  its  full  significance  to  merely  critical 
*  Job  xxxii.  8. 


EXEGESIS.  21 

tests.     Sometliing  other  and  higher  than  the  critical  fac- 
ulty is  needed.     Christ  is  the  analogue  of  Scripture — a    ^^/u>.  /  ?  ^-^  r~^ 
fact  which  demands  much  more  attention  and  emphasis    /O-x^ '  \/^o*^  >  ^"'^^ 
than  it  has  yet  received.     The  disciples  who  could  see    iU^-^^-^  J  ^ 
His  face  and  touch  His  hand  could  not  apprehend  the    fb^J^i'-^        . 
mystery  of  His  divine  })ersonality ;  and  there  was  an  ele-    )-<^*' 
ment  in  His  words  which,  though  felt,  eluded  their  anal-  ^' 
ysis.     There   is   the   same   combination   in   the  written 
Word.    Therefore,  I  repeat,  the  office  of  the  Divine  Spirit 
in  interpretation  is  to  be  distinctly  recognized.     It  may 
be  positively  asserted  that  the  Holy  Spirit  bestows  spe- 
cial illumination  and  guidance  upon  the  devout  reader 
and  student  of  Scripture.     It  must  be  admitted  that,  in 
certain  cases,  the  insight  thus  imparted  may  be  clearer 
and  more  direct  and  truthful  than  that  of  the  mere  critic. 
Those  who  are  familiar  with  the  great  exegetes  know 
what  beautiful  and  fruitful  results  are  evolved  when  the 
critical  and  the  spiritual  faculties  work  in  concert  and  at 
their  highest  power.     A  notable  illustration  is  furnished 
by  Bishop  Westcott,  in  his  treatment  of  the  writings  of 
John.     The  secret  of  his  power  in  unfolding  the  treasures 
of   the  Fourth  Gospel  lies,  not  only  in  his  critical  in- 
sight and  rare  analytic  power,  but  also  in  his  pervasion 
with  the  spirit  of  John's  Master  and  Lord.     It  is  a  Avrit(^r 
who  is  regarded  as  very  far  from  orthodox  who  says  : 
"  He  is  to  be  said  to  understand  a  writer  who,  in  reading, 
thinks  the  same  thing  which  he  thought  while  he  was 
writing."  * 

All  this  is  to  be  not  only  conceded  but  urged.     I  may 
quote  at  this  point  the  lucid  words  of  my  colleague,  Dr. 

*  Kuenen. 


22  EXEGESIS. 

Briggs  :  "  The  Scriptures  must  be  interpreted  as  other 
human  writings,  yet  their  peculiarities  and  differences 
from  other  human  writings  must  be  recognized,  espe- 
cially the  supreme,  determining  difference  of  their  inspi- 
ration by  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  accordance  with  which 
they  require  not  only  a  sympathy  with  the  human  ele- 
ment, in  the  sound  judgment  and  practical  sense  of  the 
grammarian,  the  critical  investigation  of  the  historian, 
and  the  aesthetic  taste  of  the  man  of  letters,  but  also  a 
sympathy  with  the  divine  element,  an  inquiring,  rever- 
ent spirit,  to  be  enlightened  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  with- 
out which  no  exposition  of  the  Scriptures  as  sacred,  in- 
spired writings  is  possible."  * 

Yet  with  all  this,  I  must  frankly  say  that,  in  my  judg- 
y^  ,     .     ment,  the  "  formal  princii^le "  of  the  Reformation  needs 

'T^  t^^  L,  gi-^arding  and  qualifying.  That  principle  is  that  the  di- 
C^p^-  ^  j5-- ;  vine  authority  of  Scriptm-e  is  self -evidencing,  that  the  re- 
S^^  \,    generate  man  needs  no  other  evidence,  and  that  only  the 

/T  {m^  I  ^  -y .  regenerate  can  appreciate  the  evidence.  The  principle 
is  formulated  in  the  Westminster  Confession  :f  "The 
authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  for  which  it  ought  to  be  be- 
lieved and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the  testimony  of 
any  man  or  church,  but  ivhoUij  upon  God,  the  author 
thereof."  And  again  :  "  The  Supreme  Judge,  by  which 
all  controversies  of  religion  are  to  be  determined,  and  all 
decrees  of  coimcils,  opinions  of  ancient  "wiiters,  doctrines 
of  men,  and  private  spirits  are  to  be  examined,  and  in 
whose  sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can  be  no  other  but  the 
Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scripture." 

*  Biblical  Study,  p.  27. 
t  Chap.  I.,  Sec.  4,  Sec.  10. 


qJix^  V 


pv 


EXEGESIS.  23 

Now,  if  that  priueiplc  is  to  be  nakedly  accepted,  uo 
other  inference  seems  to  me  to  be  possible  than  that  every 
man  is  his  own  judge  and  interpreter  of  Scripture ;  and 
that,  as  Dr.  Charteris  says,  "if  the  regenerate  man  do 
not  feel  the  evidence  of  their  contents,  he  may  reject 
books   claiming  to  be  Holy  Scripture."     It  is  assuredly 
true,  in  one  aspect,  that  the  authority  and  credibility  of 
Scriptui'e  depend  upon  God.     Scripture  has  no  authority 
if  it  do  not  derive  it  from  God.     But  are  we  to  exclude  Q^  *]  7V>*^^ 
the  testimony  of  man,  and  of  the  Church,  and  of  scholar-   r",  ^'^ 
ship  as  going  to  establish  the  authority  of  Scripture  ? 
How  did  we  get  the  Bible  at  all  save  through  the  Church?     n^^^  t/L^iU  T  ,  /<4  , 
T\^10  determjned  the  canon  of  Scripture?     On  what  do    ^iv-  ^Z*^"*^ 
the  "Westminster  Confession  and  the  Thirty-nine  Articles 
rest  their  list  of  canonical  books,  but  on  the  testimony  of  r^      ~\  h 

the  Fathers  and  the  declarations__Qf  Church  Coimcils  ?  ^  f 
Again,  if  Scripture  reveals  a  divine  authority  which  com- 
mends it  to  the  universal  acceptance  and  faith  of  believers, 
how  does  it  happen  that  believers  have  never  wholly 
agreed  as  to  what  is  to  be  received  as  Holy  Scriptm'e  ? 
How  comes  it  that  Hebrews,  the  Apocalypse,  second 
Peter,  Second  and  Third  John,  James,  and  Jude,  were 
so  early  and  so  persistently  challenged  and  placed  by 
high  Church  authorities  among  "  antilegomena  ?  "  How 
is  it  that  the  Apostolic  Fathers  appeal  to  the  apocryphal 
writings  as  of  inspired  authority,  and  Iniild  arguments 
upon  them?  That  Iren?eus  quotes  Barucli  and  Bel  and 
the  Dragon  as  genuine  scriptures,  and  Clement  of 
Alexandria  the  Revelation  of  Peter  and  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas ;  and  that  Origeii  distinguishes  Hebrews  from 
books  manifesthj  canonical?  How  came  it,  moreover,  that 


24  EXEGESIS. 

the  third  Council  of  Carthage,  -which  ratified  the  New 
Testament  canon  as  at  present  received,  under  the  direct 
influence  of  Augustine,  included  in  its  Old  Testament 
canon,  Tobit,  Judith,  and  the  two  books  of  Maccabees? 
Beally  these  diversities  among  the  early  church  fathers, 
between  the  Eastern  and  Western  chui'ches,  between  Car- 
thage and  Trent  and  Westminster,  are  not  easy  to  explain 
on  the  assumption  that  the  thirty-nine  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  twenty-seven  books  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament furnish  their  own  convincing  demonstration  that 
they  are  inspired  and  canonical. 

Now,  it  is  true  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  promised  to  be- 
lievers to  give  them  knowledge  of  the  truth  ;  and  that 
devout,  critical  exegesis  cannot  evade  the  influence  of  that 
fact,  as  indeed  it  has  no  desire  to  do.  Hence  it  may  be 
true  that,  in  certain  cases,  as  has  been  said,  the  insight 
of  a  saint  may  be  of  more  value  than  the  skill  of  a  gram- 
marian. But  all  this  must  be  ofi'set  and  guarded  by  the 
distinction  between  fundamental,  saving,  practical  truth 
and  matter  which,  though  equally  inspired,  lies  outside 
of  these  categories.  The  most  ignorant  Bible  -  reader, 
approaching  the  Bible  in  faith,  and  in  search  of  the 
ground  of  his  salvation  and  the  rule  of  his  life,  will  find 
these  there.  But  there  are  other  things  in  Scripture 
concerning  which  the  mere  insight  of  a  saint  is  worth 
little  or  nothing.  I  do  not  understand  that  the  Spirit 
promises  or  undertakes  to  enlighten  an  unlearned  reader 
on  points  of  critical  scholarship.  God  does  not  usually 
do  for  men  what  they  can  do  for  themselves.  Only  divine 
power  can  change  the  water  into  wine,  but  human  hands 
can  fill  the  jars  with  water.    "  The  natural  man  discerneth 


EXEGESIS.  "25 

not  the  tilings  of  the  Spirit  of  God ; "  therefore  he  needs 
supernatm-al  light  to  dispel  the  darkness  that  is  in  him  ; 
and  this  the  Spirit  bestows.  But  the  natural  man  do(,'S 
or  may  know  his  Hebrew  and  Greek  grammars.  He  can 
discern  the  force  of  the  aorist  tense  and  of  the  subjunc- 
tive mood.  He  can  Aveigh  the  evidence  for  a  reading  and 
detect  and  correct  a  mistranslation :  and  here  the  Spirit 
throws  him  upon  his  lexicon  and  grammar.  The  insight 
of  a  saint,  apart  from  scholarly  criticism,  throws  no  light 
on  the  genuineness  of  the  passage  concerning  the  three 
heavenly  witnesses,  and  of  the  first  eleven  verses  of  the 
eighth  of  Jolui ;  nor  upon  the  authenticity  of  the  last 
twelve  verses  of  Mark's  Gospel,  of  Second  Peter,  of  tlie 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  nor  upon  the  meaning  of  bap- 
tism for  the  dead  and  the  woman  having  power  on  her 
head  because  of  the  angels.  Piety  and  orthodoxy,  by 
themselves,  are  helpless  in  the  presence  of  such  questions. 
Therefore,  whatever  may  be  the  self-evidencing  authority 
of  the  Bible,  it  is  bound  up  with  intelligent  exegesis  at 
all  points  which  fall  within  the  range  of  critical  scholar- 
shij).  The  doctrine  of  a  spiritual  sense  in  Scripture 
which  is  independent  of  exegesis  has  no  foundation. 
There  is  no  inspired  Scripture  which  will  not,  ultimately, 
tally,  in  its  spiritual  sense  and  in  every  other  sense,  Avith 
the  results  of  a  sound  exegesis. 

In  short,  the  principle  must  be  maintained,  that  the 
Bible  cannot  be  coiTectly  and  adequately  interpreted  from 
a  merely  subjective  stand-point.  Whatever  Adrtue  may  be 
conceded  to  the  subjectiA'e  insight,  there  must  be  object- 
ive standards  of  interpretation.  The  claim  of  final  au- 
thority for  subjectiA'e  interpretation  is  compelled  to  face 


26  EXEGESIS. 

and  to  deal  as  best  it  can  witli  the  endless  diversities  of 
interpretation  among  men  who  may  be  fairly  presumed 
to  be  alike  sincere,  reverent,  and  moved  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  There  is  but  one  resource  for  us,  unless  we  con- 
sent to  fall  back  passively  upon  the  principle  of  the  ear- 
lier mediaeval  exegesis,  that  the  Church  alone  is  the  infal- 
lible interpreter  of  Scripture — and  that  is  the  consensus 
of  devout  and  scholarly  criticism,  combined  with  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  promise  of  the  Spirit's 
illumination  includes  the  illumination  of  the  critical  pro- 
cesses. The  Spirit  employs  all  human  media.  If,  in  cer- 
tain cases.  He  works  through  the  imtraiued  faculty  of  the 
milearned.  He  likewise  works  through  the  trained  intel- 
lect, the  rich  knowledge,  and  the  disciplined  acumen  of 
the  scholar.  For  the  docile  and  honest  student  of  the 
Bible,  the  critical  attitude  will  not  impair  the  simplicity 
of  heart  to  which  God  delights  to  reveal  His  truth.  It 
will  enhance  that  high  and  reverent  esteem  for  Scriptui-e; 
that  sense  of  "  the  heaveuliness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy 
of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  full  discovery 
it  makes  of  the  only  way  of  man's  salvation,  and  the  inany 
other  incomparable  excellencies."  All  these  will  come 
into  clearer  light  and  sharper  definition,  vindicating  the 
profitableness  of  all  inspired  Scripture  "  for  teaching,  for 
reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  which  is  in  right- 
eousness, that  the  man  of  God  may  be  complete,  furnished 
completely  unto  every  good  work." 


EXEGESIS.  27 


III. — Exegesis  is  Peogeessive. 

That  exegesis  is  progressive  follows  from  what  has  been 
said  as  to  its  necessity,  and  also  from  the  very  nature  of  /cr-*W  . 

revelation  itself,  which  is  progressive.    It  has  not  ceased 
to  be  true  that  God  speaks  "in  many  parts  and  in  divers 
ways."     Each   part,   each   way  unfolds  new   revelations. 
The  possibilities  of  revelation  through  the  manifestation 
of   the  Eternal  Son,  are  as  infinite  as  the  Son  himself. 
As  i^velation  does  not  begin  with  the  Bible^t  does  not  ^ 
end  witli  Jthe  Bible.     Admitting  that  in   the   Bible   are 
laid  down  the  fundamental,  spiritual,  and  moral  princi-    /i      ^^  i.0^  c>^ 
pies  to  which  every  succeeding  age  must  adjust  itself,  are    ^    ^^t.juAv  t'*'*'*^ 
we  to  deny  the  title  and  the  character  of  revelation  to  the    (y^ju^-   ''  ^ 
countless  new  phases  and  aj)plications  of  those  principles      ^('^  Cy^'^ 
which  are  exhibited  in  the  later  history  of  mankind?    Ai-e 
we  to  limit  revelation  in  history  to  the  history  of  the 
Jews  and  of  the  primitive  Christian  Church,  and  to  refuse 
to  extend  it  to  the  vast  and  complex  developments  of  later 
civilizations  ?     Is  it  too  much  to  assert  that  modern  sci- 
ence furnishes  a  new  and  magnificent  revelation  of  the 
Creator,  or  that  the  later  history  of  the  Christian  Church, 
with  its  vast  and  varied  record  of  missionary  enterprise 
and  conquest,  has  for  us  no  revelations  which  are  not 
to  be  found  in  the  biblical  account  of  the  Jewish  the- 
ocracy, and  of  the  churches  of  Corinth,  Ephesus,  Galatia, 
and  Colossae  ? 

In  Scripture,  as  in  nature,  God  leaves  much  to  be 
filled  out  and  formulated  by  the  advancing  knowledge 
and  experience  of  mankind.     The  work  of  exegesis  is 


28  EXEGESIS. 

never  clone.  "  Light  is  sown."  The  successive  ages  reap 
new  harvests  of  light  from  the  furrows  of  the  Word 
through  the  subsoil  ploughing  of  devout  criticism.  Illus- 
trations of  this  truth  are  patent  to  the  most  superficial 
student.  One  need  only  compare  the  commentaries  of 
former  centuries  with  the  best  of  to-day,  to  see  the  ad- 
vance, not  only  in  the  results,  but  in  the  methods,  of  exe- 
gesis. What  a  stride  from  the  commentaries  of  Clement 
and  Origen,  founded  on  the  principle  that  all  Scripture 
is  to  be  allegorically  understood,  or  assuming  a  three-fold 
sense  of  Scripture  answering  to  body,  soul,  and  spirit 
in  man;  with  their  universal  applications  of  isolated 
phrases ;  with  the  absence  of  the  historic  sense  ;  with 
their  constant  assumption  of  an  esoteric  meaning ;  with 
their  mystic  inferences  from  synonyms  and  repetitions ; 
with  their  admissions  of  apocryphal  legends  into  New 
Testament  story,  and  their  intrusion  of  allegorical  fancies 
into  the  simplest  New  Testament  incidents ;  with  their 
loose  and  paraphrastic  quotations,  their  different  inter- 
pretations of  the  same  passage,  and  their  citations  of 
verses  which  have  no  existence— what  a  stride,  I  say,  to 
a  monograph  of  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Westcott,  Lightfoot, 
Godet,  or  Weiss,  on  a  gospel  or  epistle,  with  its  full  his- 
toric background,  its  accui'ate  historic  perspective,  its 
vivid  historic  environment ;  with  its  minute  scrutiny  of 
the  text,  its  searching  grammatical  analysis,  and  its  wealth 
of  literary,  historical,  geographical,  and  archgeological 
illustration !  How  nice  the  discrimination  of  shades  of 
meaning !  What  intimacy  with  the  writer's  modes  of 
thought  and  peculiai*  turns  of  expression !  What  careful 
weighing  of  diverse  interpretations  !    What  a  \dgorous  re- 


EXEGESIS.  29 

jection  of  mystical  and  allegorical  expositions  !  What  an 
untiincliiug  facing  of  the  naked  Word  in  its  literal  sense  ! 
What  an  imearthiug  of  the  hidden  treasures  of  etymology 
and  synonym !  What  a  quick  sense  of  idiom,  as  though 
reading  a  living  tongue!  It  is  like  emerging  from  a 
jungle  into  a  park.  How  much  nearer  to  the  original 
oracles  has  textual  criticism  brought  us  !  What  an  ad- 
vance from  Erasmus,  with  his  single  mutilated  manu- 
script of  the  Apocalypse,  filling  up  the  gaps  in  the  text 
by  translating  the  Vulgate  into  his  own  Greek,  to  the 
collations  of  the  Vatican,  Sinaitic,  and  Alexandrine  cod- 
ices ;  to  chemistry  and  criticism  joining  hands  for  the 
restoration  of  the  Codex  Ephraem ;  to  the  facsimiles  of 
Aleph  and  B,  and  to  the  magnificent  digests  of  Tischen- 
dorf,  Tregelles,  and  Westcott  and  Hort ! 

IV. — It  Follows  that  Exegesis  must  be  Modest  and 

Patient. 

The  exegete  must  frankly  recognize  in  Scripture  things 
which  he  cannot  explain.  The  Apocalypse  of  John,  on 
which  the  interpreters  of  every  Christian  generation  have 
exercised  their  ingenuity,  and  which  has  been  overlaid 
with  wagon  -  loads  of  hermeneutical  nonsense,  is  still, 
much  of  it,  a  riddle ;  and  passages  emerge  in  almost 
every  book  of  Scripture,  where  all  that  exegesis  can  offer 
is  conjectiu'e.  The  right  attitude  toward  such  phenom- 
ena is  not  that  of  some  earlier  interpreters,  who  insisted 
that  an  interpretation  must  be  given  at  all  hazards,  prac- 
tically assumed  that  onij  interpretation  was  better  than 
none,  and  took  refuge  from  ignorance  in  allegory.    Bather 


30 


EXEGESIS. 


is  the  exegete  to  say  frankly,  "  There  is  no  key  in  the 
bunch  at  my  girdle  which  will  fit  this  lock.  Meanwhile 
there  are  open  doors  enough.  I  have  only  to  wait." 
Might  we  not  expect  that  the  Word  of  which  Christ  is 
the  centre  and  the  inspiration  should  sometimes  say  to 
us,  out  of  its  very  darkness,  just  what  Christ  himself  said 
to  His  disciples :  "I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto 
you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now  ?  " 


V. — But  with  all  Modesty  and  Patience,  Exegesis 
Must  be  Courageous  and  Candid. 

Perhaps  we  are  never  fully  aware  of  the  strength  of  the 
preconceptions  and  prejudices  which  we  bring  to  the 
study  of  Scripture,  until  we  come  face  to  face  with  Scrip- 
ture which  flatly  contradicts  them,  and  even  strikes  at 
what  we  have  been  Avont  to  regard  as  sacred  and  essential. 
The  temptation  then  is  either  to  shirk  or  to  fight  the 
plain  meaning  of  the  Bible,  to  persist  in  seeking  for 
some  explanation  which  will  fit  into  our  conception,  and 
thus  to  be  guilty  of  the  sin  of  wresting  the  Scriptures. 


wUiy^^-^^ 


If  the  Bible  is  what  we  profess  to  believe  it  is,  Ave  must 


^aj^t(ji.nc^  ^ _^ 

4  Y^  "^  _^  i    trust  its  plain,  face- meaning.     "We  must  assume  that  the 

sacred  ark  needs  no  Uzzah's  touch  to  steady  it ;  that 
God's  truth  is  entirely  competent  to  vindicate  itself.  We 
are  to  march  boldly  up  to  it  and  to  look  it  squarely  in  the 
face.  If  it  does  not  say  Avhat  we  thought  it  would  say,  or 
ought  to  say,  we  are  to  set  about  correcting  ourselves  and 
not  the  Bible.  We  are  not  to  be  scared  AA^hen  a  correct 
exegesis  tells  us  things  which  startle  us.  AVlien  God 
opens  a  man's  eyes,  he  beholds  loondrous  things  out  of 


EXEGESIS.  :U 

His  law.*  A  Calvinist  has  no  reason  for  being  frightened 
at  an  Arminian  text,  nor  an  Arminian  at  a  Calvinistic  text. 
The  two  species  may  be  found  side  by  side  in  our  Lord's 
own  words,  f  It  is  much  more  likely  that  Calvin  and 
Arminius  need  revising  and  correcting  than  that  Scripture 
does.  John  Newton  said  that  when  he  struck  a  Calvin- 
istic text  he  was  a  Calvinist,  and  an  Arminian  when  he 
came  upon  an  Arminian  text.  Calvin's  principle  is  sound 
to  the  very  core  :  that  it  is  the  first  business  of  an  inter- 
preter to  let  his  author  say  what  he  does  say,  instead  of 
attributing  to  him  what  he  thinks  he  ought  to  say. 

The  failui'e  to  recognize  and  accept  these  principles 
has  made  the  history  of  exegesis  one  of  the  most  dis- 
heartening and  humiliating  records  in  the  history  of  re- 
ligion. It  was  said  by  some  one,  of  the  Dutch  people, 
that  a  sufficient  proof  of  their  greatness  lay  in  the  fact 
that  they  Avere  above  water  at  all;  and  it  might,  with 
equal  truthfulness,  be  said  that  one  of  the  strongest  evi- 
dences of  the  divine  origin  and  quality  of  the  Bible  is  its 
survival  of  a  host  of  its  expoimders.  The  great  distinct- 
ive fact  which,  along  with  much  that  is  reverent,  earnest, 
and  scholarly,  marks  the  history  of  exegesis  down  to  the 
Reformation  period  at  least,  and  which  reasserts  itself 
after  the  glorious  break  made  by  Erasmus,  Luther,  and 
Calvin,  is  the  practical  rejection  of  the  actual  Bible,  and 
the  persistent  effort  to  cast  it  into  the  moulds  of  tradi- 
tion, mysticism,  philosophical  speculation,  and  ecclesias- 
tical dogma.  The  best  and  most  devout  modern  criticism 
is  a  new  protestantism,  which  faces  the  Bible  as  it  is,  and 

*  Psalm  cxix.  18. 

f  For  example,  Matt,  xi.  35-28. 


32  EXEGESIS. 

places  its  authorit}'  above  that  of  councils,  systems,  dog- 
mas, and  individual  fancies.  The  Bible  has  been  practi- 
cally turned  against  itself.  It  has  fiuTiished  ideas  which 
men  have  developed  after  their  own  fashion,  and  to  serve 
their  own  ends,  and  then  have  insisted  that  the  Bible  was 
constructed  after  that  fashion  and  for  those  ends.  Hence 
it  is  a  familiar  fact  that  the  Bible  has  been  cited  in  justi- 
fication of  every  conceivable  monstrosity  of  speculation, 
of  every  refinement  of  cnielty,  of  every  gross  tyranny,  of 
every  vagary  of  crank  or  fanatic,  and  of  every  distorted 
moral  hobby  which  has  disfigured  Christian  history. 
The  old  Latin  elegiac  is  sadly  truthful : 

' '  Hie  liber  est  in  quo  quperit  sua  dogmata  quisque  : 
luvenit  et  pariter  dogmata  quisque  sua."* 

"  Few  are,  perhaps,  aware  of  the  avvful  extent  to  which 
Scriptm*e  has  been  distorted  to  e\-il  purposes,  and  of  the 
terrible  and  age-long  injuries  which  these  misaj)plications 
of  Scripture  by  human  ignorance  and  perversity  have 
inflicted  upon  generation  after  generation  of  imhappy 
sufferers.  The  full  record  of  those  injuries  would  l^e  the 
record  of  '  untold  agonies,  and  bloodshed  in  rivers  ; '  it 
Avould  be  the  record  of  the  lives  of  millions  darkened 
and  blighted  by  intolerable  superstitions  ;  it  would  be 
the  record  of  the  deadliest  violations  of  the  eternal  laws 
of  morality  committed  in  the  name  of  religion  by  those 
who  claimed  to  be  its  infallible  defenders.  .  .  .  On 
misapplications  of  'Honor  the  king,'  have  been  built 
the  ruinous  opj^osition  to  national  freedom ;  on  misap- 

*This  is  the  book  in  wliicli  each  man  seeks  for  his  own  doctrines, 
and  each  alike  fiuds  his  own. 


EXEGESIS.  33 

l)liccitions  of  '  Thou  art  Peter,'  the  colossal  iisuipatioiis  of 
papal  t}T.'anny ;  on  misapplications  of  '  Cui'sed  be  Ca- 
naan,' the  shameful  iniquities  of  the  slave-trade  ;  on  mis- 
applications of  '  Compel  them  to  come  in,'  the  hideous 
crimes  of  the  Inquisition ;  on  misapplications  of  '  Thou 
slialt  not  suffer  a  witch  to  live,'  the  infuriated  butchery 
of  thousands  of  "svretched  women.  ...  It  would  be 
the  duty  of  one  who  vn:ote  the  story  of  Scripture  inter- 
pretation to  show  what  has  been  the  reason  why 

*  Tlae  devil  can  quote  Scripture  for  liis  jDurpose ; ' 

why  it  is  that 

'  in  religion 
What  damned  error  but  some  sober  brow 
Will  bless  it  and  approve  it  with  a  text, 
Hiding  the  grossness  with  fair  ornament ' "  * 

To  review  this  history  in  detail  would  be  most  interest- 
ing, but  is  quite  impossible  within  my  present  limits.  A 
few  illustrations  must  suffice. 

The  Septuagint  illustrates  the  remark  of  a  modem 
scholar,  that  "even  a  translator  has  need  of  in\incible 
honesty  if  he  would  avoid  the  misleading  influences  of  his 
own  a  priori  conclusions."  The  Septuagint,  or  Greek 
version  of  the  Old  Testament,  was  the  popular  Bible  of 
Christ's  and  of  Paul's  time.  Paul's  Old  Testament  quota- 
tions are  mostly  draAvn  from  it,  as  are  many  of  the  cita- 
tions ascribed  to  Christ  by  the  Evangelists.  It  was  the 
only  Bible  used  by  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  and  was  held  by 

*  Archdeacon  Farrar  :  "  Wresting  the  Scriptures."   Expositor,  First 
Series,  vol.  xii.,  pp.  29,  33. 
3 


34  EXEGESIS. 

them,  as  by  many  of  the  later  fathers,  to  be  divinely  in- 
spired.* But  the  Alexandrian  translators,  with  the  en- 
larged range  of  view  consequent  upon  their  contact  with 
Greek  cultui'e,  were  not  proof  against  the  temptation  to 
modify  their  original  Scripture,  in  order  to  evade  its  blows 
at  their  national  pride,  and  to  make  it  more  agreeable  and 
less  incredible  to  the  Gentile  mind.  They  toned  down  the 
simj^le  anthropomorphisms  of  the  old  Hebrew  Bible,  and 
they  struck  out  expressions  which  seemed  to  reflect  upon 
their  leaders  or  to  expose  the  moral  delinquencies  of 
their  ancestors,  such  as  the  reference  to  Moses'  "  leprous  " 
hand,  and  God's  declaration  that  Israel  was  a  "stiff- 
necked  "  people. f 

Passing  on  to  the  days  of  Christ,  we  find  Scripture 
overgrown  with  that  enormous  mass  of  rabbinic  inter- 
pretation which,  beginning  as  a  supplement  to  the  wi'it- 

*  Foi'  instance,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Justin  Martyr,  Theo- 
dore of  Mopsuestia,  and  Augustine.  This  belief  rested  largely  upon 
the  pseudonymous  letter  of  Aristeas,  which  related  that  the  seventy- 
two  translators  accomplished  the  entire  translation  in  seventy-two 
days ;  that  each  translator,  independently,  translated  the  whole  Old 
Testament,  and  that  these  translations  were  found,  on  comparison,  to 
he  verbally  identical. 

f  Exod.  iv.  6  ;  xxxii.  9.  They  inserted  rabbinical  legends,  as  that 
the  flint  knives  used  for  circumcision  in  the  wilderness  had  been  buried 
in  Joshua'c  grave  (.Josh.  xxiv.  30) ;  that  God  set  bounds  to  the  people 
"  according  to  the  number  of  the  angels  of  God  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  8).  See 
also  Gen.  iv.  4  ;  Josh.  xiii.  23  ;  1  Sam.  xx.  30  ;  Num.  xxxii.  12.  The 
merit  of  the  translation  is  very  unequal.  It  is  thought  that  the  work 
of  fifteen  hands  may  be  discovered.  The  best  sections  are  Leviticus 
and  Proverbs.  The  Prophets  are  often  quite  unintelligible.  Daniel 
was  so  bad  that  the  later  version  of  Theodotion  was  substituted  for  it, 
and  the  original  version  disappeared  and  was  believed  to  be  no  longer 
extant,  until  it  was  discovered  at  Rome  in  1772. 


EXEGESIS.  35 

ten  law,  at  last  superseded  and  threw  it  into  contempt. 
The  plainest  sayings  of  Scripture  were  resolved  into  an- 
other sense,  and  a  rabbi  declares  that  he  that  renders  a 
verse  of  Scripture  as  it  appears,  says  what  is  not  true. 
Akiba  assumed  that  the  Pentateuch  was  a  continuous 
enigma,  and  that  a  meaning  was  to  be  fomid  in  every 
monosyllable,  and  a  mystic  sense  m  every  hook  and 
flourish  of  the  letters.  The  Oral  Law,  subsequently 
reduced  to  ^vi-iting  in  the  Talmud,  that  encyclopaedia 
of  all  the  sense  and  nonsense  of  the  Kabbinical  Schools, 
with  its  exaggerations,  superstitions,  and  obscenities,  its 
proverbs,  allegories,  and  legends,  its  romance,  poetry,  and 
parable,  completely  overshadowed  and  superseded  the 
Scriptures,  so  that  Jesus  was  literally  justified  in  saying, 
"  Thus  have  ye  made  the  commandment  of  God  of  none 
effect  through  your  tradition." 

In  the  succeeding  period  of  exegesis,  that  of  the  Alex- 
andrian Schools,  we  see  indeed  the  culmination  of  Greek 
influence  upon  Jewish  thought,  but  we  also  see  the  mis- 
chief of  the  rabbinical  interpretation  perpetuated  and 
active  in  that  distinctive  feature  of  Alexandrian  exegesis 
— the  allegorical  method,  which,  in  turn,  has  transmitted 
its  influence  down  to  a  very  late  period.  Allegorical  in- 
terpretation is  not  bom  of  biblical  exegesis.  The  Brah- 
mins employed  it  upon  the  Vedas,  the  Sufis  upon  the 
Koran,  and  the  Stoics  upon  Homer.  It  grew  out  of  the 
desire  to  find  a  point  of  junction  for  an  old  faith  with  a 
new,  wider,  and  more  philosophic  culture.  It  was  the 
medium  of  a  compromise  between  loyalty  to  tradition  and 
the  requirement  of  a  broader  intellectual  outlook.  It  was 
an  attempt  to  extract  the  new  ideas  from  the  old  writings. 


36  EXEGESIS. 

The  Alexandrian  Jew  midertook  to  liarmonize  the 
severe  dogmas  of  the  old  Hebrew  faith  A^ith  the  Hellenic 
philosophy,  and  to  find  the  teachings  of  Zeno  and  of  Plato 
in  Moses  and  the  prophets.  The  only  possible  instni- 
ment  of  this  jDrocess  was  allegory,  which  found  its  high 
priest  in  Philo.  Under  his  treatment  the  LaAv  of  Moses 
and  the  histories  of  Scrij)ture  became  wellnigh  unrecog- 
nizable. The  fundamental  thought  of  his  great  comment- 
ary on  Genesis  is,  that  the  history  of  mankind  as  related 
in  that  book  is  nothing  else  than  a  system  of  psychology 
and  ethics,  the  different  individuals  who  figure  in  the 
history  denoting  different  states  of  the  soul.  Abraham  is 
the  type  of  a  Stoic  seeking  truth.  Attaining  the  knowl- 
edge of  God,  he  marries  Sarah,  who  is  abstract  wisdom. 
Jacob,  arriving  at  Bethel  at  sunset,  is  human  wisdom 
coming  to  the  divine  Word,  where  the  perceptive  faculty 
is  found  to  be  useless.  Moses  is  intelligence  ;  Aaron, 
speech ;  Enoch,  repentance  ;  Esau,  iiide  disobedience  ; 
Rachel,  innocence.  "  The  most  external  occurrences  of 
scriptural  history,"  to  quote  the  words  of  Schiirer,  be- 
come in  his  hands  mines  of  instruction  concerning  the 
supreme  problems  of  human  existence."  The  Bible  is 
converted  into  a  philosophical  romance. 

Nor  do  the  operation  and  the  influence  of  this  ^dcious 
method  cease  with  the  Alexandrian  School.  They  appear 
in  full  and  baneful  vigor  in  the  exegesis  of  the  Fathers. 
The  sincere  and  beautiful  piety  of  Clement  of  Rome ;  the 
catholicity,  candor,  and  simplicity  of  Justin  Martyr;  the 
learning  of  Irengeus  ;  the  intellectual  vigor  of  Tertullian  ; 
the  culture  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  ;  the  homiletic  and 
ex]30sitory  skill  of  Origen — none  of  these  avail  to  pre- 


EXEGESIS.  37 

serve  their  exegesis  from  the  taiut  of  the  rabbis  and  of 
Philo.  They  alter,  they  misquote,  they  introduce  Jewish 
legends,  they  appeal  to  apocryphal  writings  as  inspired, 
they  resolve  the  plainest  statements  and  narratives  into 
allegory,  they  proclaim  the  words  of  the  Septuagint  to  be 
the  very  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  even  when  they  differ 
most  widely  from  the  original  Hebrew.  In  Clement  and 
Origen,  notwithstanding  their  larger  learning  and  broader 
cultiu'e,  the  intiuence  of  Philo  is  apparent  in  their  at- 
tempt to  reconcile  the  Bible  and  Greek  philosophy,  and 
to  vindicate  a  Christian  (jnosis  which  penetrates  to  a  hid- 
den, oracular,  mystical  sense  of  Scripture.  On  such  a 
basis  allegory  runs  rampant.  With  all  Origen's  depth  of 
thought,  grammatical  knowledge,  expository  skill,  and 
earnest  piety,  he  is  dominated  by  the  theory  of  verbal  ^^ 

dictation  in  its  most  pronounced  form,  and  by  the  as- 
sumption that  the  Bible  is  throughout  homogeneous  and, 
in  every  particular,  supematurally  pei^fect.  From  the 
plain  contradictions  of  Scripture  to  this  position,  the  only 
refuge  is  allegory,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  threefold  sense, 
literal,  moral,  and  mystical.  As  the  anthropomorphisms 
of  the  Old  Testament  could  not  be  literally  true  ;  as  such 
stories  as  the  di'unkenness  of  Noah  and  the  incest  of  Lot 
w^ere  immoral ;  as  some  of  the  Old  Testament  precepts 
were  manifestly  unjust — these  must  all  be  interpreted  in 
a  mystical  sense.  The  water-pots  at  Cana,  containing 
two  or  three  firkins  apiece,  mean  the  Scriptures,  whicli 
were  intended  to  purify  the  Jews,  and  Avhich  sometimes 
contain  two  firkins — the  moral  and  literal  senses — and 
sometimes  three,  the  spiritual  sense  also.  The  six 
water-pots   indicate  that   the  world  was  created  in  six 


38  EXEGESIS. 

days.  The  ass  on  wliich  Jesus  rode  into  Jerusalem  repre- 
sents the  letter  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  ass'  foal, 
which  was  gentle  and  submissive,  the  New  Testament, 
and  the  two  apostles  who  go  to  loose  them  are  the  moral 
and  mystical  senses. 

Notwithstanding  the  hints  of  a  sounder  criticism  and 
of  a  better  method  in  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  in  the 
school  of  Antioch  represented  by  Theodore  of  Mopsues- 
tia  and  Chrysostom,  and  later  still  in  Jerome,  the  exe- 
getic  pendulum  takes  a  backward  swing  in  Augustine,  far 
greater  as  a  theologian  and  dialectician  than  as  an  exe- 
gete.  He  was  ignorant  of  Hebrew  and  but  poorly 
equipped  in  Greek.  Li  him  the  Rabbinic  and  Pliilo- 
nian  method,  and  the  superstitious  reverence  for  the  Sep- 
tuagint  survive,  and  in  him  appears  that  widely-spread 
and  most  mischievous  error  of  interpreting  Scripture  in 
accordance  with  dogmatic  prepossessions,  formulated  in 
his  rule  that  the  Bible  must  be  interpreted  according  to 
Church  orthodoxy,*  and  expressed  still  more  forcibly  in 
his  criticism  of  the  Letter  of  Mani  :  "I  would  not  be- 
lieve the  gospel  if  I  were  not  moved  thereto  by  the 
authority  of  the  Catholic  Chui-ch,"  The  victory  re- 
mained for  the  time  mth  the  allegorists.  The  Western 
theologians  crushed  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  the 
school  of  Antioch  was  anathematized. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  give  even  an  outline  of  the 
history  of  exegesis.  I  shall  not  therefore  detain  you 
amid  the  di-eariness  of  the  period  from  the  seventh  to  the 
twelfth  century,  when  the  Papacy  had  established  its  des- 

•  Scriptura  nou  asserit  nisi  fidem  catholicum. — De  Doctr.  Christ., 
iii.  10. 


EXEGESIS.  39 

potism  over  the  minds  of  men  ;  when  the  church  backed 
A\dth  penal  thunders  her  claim  to  be  the  sole,  infallible 
interpreter  of  Scripture,  and  treated  the  study  of  its 
original  tongues  as  little  better  than  a  crime.  It  is  a  re- 
lief to  escape  from  the  sombre  shadow  of  that  eclipse  of 
learning ;  from  the  huge  piles  of  dogmatic  tomes ;  from 
the  uncritical,  second-hand,  hap-hazard  patristic  compi- 
lations of  Bede  and  Alcuin ;  from  the  interlinear  and 
marginal  glosses  of  Strabo  and  Anselm  of  Laon,  and  from 
the  grammatical  and  mystical  platitudes  of  Hugo  of  St. 
Victor.  Nor  can  I  dwell  upon  the  scholastic  era,  when  the 
Bible  served  as  the  handmaid  of  Aiistotle  ;  nor  upon  the 
great  exegetic  revival  under  the  auspices  of  Erasmus, 
Luther,  and  Calvin,  a  prince  among  exegetes  ;  nor  upon 
the  sad  relapse  of  the  post-Eeformation  era,  with  its  new 
scholasticism  built  upon  party-creeds,  and  fettering  and 
emasculating  exegesis  by  an  arbitrary  and  dictatorial  con- 
fessionalism. 

In  the  brief  time  which  remains,  I  can  only  summarize 
a  few  of  the  results  of  a  false  exegesis  which  the  past  has 
transmitted  to  later  times,  and  against  which  the  best 
biblical  scholarship  of  this  age  is  arrayed. 

First  of  all  is  the  identification  of  inspiration  with  me- 
chanical, literal,  verbal  infallibility,  a  doctrine  embodied 
in  the  seventeenth  century  formulas  that  the  WTiters  of 
Scriptures  are  "  amanuenses  of  God,"  "  hands  of  Christ," 
"scribes  and  notaries  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  "li^dng  and 
writing  ^^ens."  The  extent  to  which  this  was  pressed  is 
well-nigh  incredible.  The  Hellenic  Consensus  of  1675, 
dra^vn  up  by  Turretin  and  Heidegger,  asserted  that  the 
very  vowel-points  and  accents  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  were 


40  EXEGESIS. 

divinely  inspired.  It  was  even  discussed  whether  the 
vowel-points  originated  with  Adam,  Moses,  or  Ezra  :  the 
actual  fact  being  that  they  originated  with  the  Masorites, 
about  the  sixth  century  of  the  Christian  era.  The  Wit- 
temberg  faculty,  in  1638,  decreed  that  to  speak  of  barbar- 
isms or  solecisms  in  the  New  Testament  Greek  was  blas- 
phemy against  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  the  Purists  of  the 
seventeenth  century  maintained  that  to  deny  that  God 
gave  the  New  Testament  in  anything  else  than  pure, 
classical  Greek,  was  to  imperil  the  doctrine  of  inspiration. 
Such  absurdities  have,  happily,  become  obsolete, 
though  their  underlying  principle  still  crops  out  in  the 
modern  Church.  The  doctrine  of  verbal  inerrancy  is  in 
plain  contradiction  of  the  actual  phenomena  of  Scripture. 
It  necessitates  as  its  corollary  inerrant  transmission  and 
inerraut  interpretation.  It  is  based  wholly  upon  an  o, 
'priori  assumption  of  what  insj)iration  must  he,  and  not 
upon  the  Bible  as  it  actually  exists  ;  it  is  contrary  to  the 
analogy  of  God's  procedure  in  other  departments  of  His 
administration  ;  it  has  no  warrant  in  the  teachings  of  the 
early  Church,  and  it  renders  a  true  exegesis  simply  im- 
possible.* 

*  It  is  difficult  to  avoid  severe  expressions  concerning  the  attempts 
of  certain  divines,  and  writers  in  tlie  religious  journals,  to  stigmatize  as 
unorthodox  those  who  deny  the  verbal  infallibility  of  Scripture,  and 
to  represent  them  as  drawing  their  arguments  from  sceptical  sources. 
The  question  of  Christian  courtesy,  charity,  and  candor  entirely  apart, 
such  utterances  betray  an  ignorance  which  is  unpardonable  in  men 
who  assume  to  shape  and  direct  public  opinion.  It  ought  not  to  be 
necessary  to  inform  such  that  the  denial  of  verbal  infallibilit)^  is  not 
only  no  new  thing,  but  that  it  has  been  asserted  by  a  host  of  Chris- 
tian scholars,  of  the  first  rank,  since  the  days  of  Jerome,  not  to  go 


EXEGESIS.  41 

Next  follows  the  principle  of  allegorical  interpretatiou, 
which  asserts  itself  with  more  or  less  power  throughout 
the  entire  history  of  exegesis  from  the  Rabbinical  to  the 
post-Reformation  era,   and  which  at  once  sweeps  away 
all  fixed  standards  of  interpretation,  and  puts  the  reader 
at  the  mercy  of  each  expositor's  individual  fancy.     On  its 
mischievousness  in  ignoring  the  element  of   growth   in 
biblical  history  and  reducing  it  to  a  dead  level,  I  have  not 
time  to  dwell.     The  allegorical  applicaiion  of  Scripture, 
within  reasonable  limits,  is,  indeed,  legitimate  ;  but  that 
is  quite  another  and  a  different  matter  from  allegorical 
interpretation.     The  evil  of  this  method  appears  in  a  cer- 
tain class  of  popular  expositions,  the  atrocities  of  which 
would  fill  volumes,  in  which  the  preacher  rides,  Jehu-like, 
across  country,  some  rampant  fancy  of  his  own,  instead  of 
following  soberly  and  reverently  in  the  track  of  the  Word. 
There  is,  unfortunately,  too  much  truth  in  the  severe  re- 
farther  back.     Among  these  may  be  named  Luther  and  Calvin  ;  llich- 
ard  Baxter  and  Samuel  Rutherford  ;  Hooker,  Chillingworth,  Tillot- 
son,    Doddridge,  Warburton,  Paley,  Lowth  ;  Archbishop  Whately, 
Bishops  Thirlwall   and  Heber,  Dean  Alford,  Bishops  Lightfoot  and 
Westcott,  Archdeacon  Farrar  and  Professor  Sanday.     The  Church  of 
Rome  has  never  fully  decreed  the  doctrine.     It  was  denied  by  Car- 
dinal Newman  ;  and  the  Bishop  of  Amycla,  assistant  to  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Westminster,  asserts  that  '  ■  Catholics  are  under  no  sort  or 
obligation  to  believe  that  inspiration  extends  to  the  words  of  Holy 
Scripture  as  well  as  to  the  subject-matter  which  is  therein  contained." 
Among  the  Germans  may  be  mentioned  the  revered   names  of  Tho- 
luck  and  Neander,  with  Meyer,  Stier,  Lange,  and  Dorner.     Many  oth- 
ers might  be  added  to  the  list.     The  doctrine  is  nowhere  stated  in  the 
"Westminster  Standards.     Their  authors  were  content  to   assert  the 
fact  of  inspiration  without  defining  its  mode  and  degrees.      The  same 
is  true  of  the  Anglican  Articles. 


42  EXEGESIS. 

mark  of  a  living  scholar,  tliat  "  liomiletics  have  been,  to 
an  incredible  extent,  the  PliyUoxcra  vasfatrix  of  exegesis, 
iUid  that  preachers  have  become  privileged  misinterpret- 
ers."  That  the  commentary,  even  down  to  a  late  period, 
has  not  escaped  this  nuisance,  may  be  seen  from  Bishop 
Wordsworth's  comment  on  the  story  of  Jael  and  Sisera, 
where  we  are  told  that  there  is  a  parallel  betAveen  the 
tent-peg  with  which  Jael  shattered  Sisera's  skull,  and 
the  stake  by  which  the  Gentiles  enlarge  the  church ;  that 
there  is  a  comparison  of  the  tent-peg  with  the  cross ;  and 
that  there  is  also  a  parallel  between  Jael  and  the  Virgin 
Mary. 

Thirdly  comes  the  exaggeration  of  the  so-called  "  an- 
alogy of  faith,"  a  favorite  phrase  with  the  Keformers,  and 
originally  signifying  that  Scrij)ture  should  be  explained 
in  accordance  with  Scripture.  The  phrase  itself  was 
based  on  a  mistranslation  of  Romans  xii.  6  ;  "  and  while 
it  imposed  a  salutary  check  upon  the  practice  of  isolating 
passages  of  Scriptui*e,  and  carried  the  sound  principle 
that  individual  passages  should  be  interpreted  according 
to  the  general  tenor  of  Scripture,  it  soon  passed,  practi- 
cally, into  the  rule  that  interpretation  must  conform  to 
correct  dogma.  Thus,  as  has  been  said,  "  it  paved  the 
way  for  the  distortions  and  so2:)histries  of  the  later  Prot- 
estant scholasticism,  and  turned  the  Old  Testament  espe- 
cially into  a  sort  of  obscure  forest,  in  which  dogma  and 
allegory  hunt  in  couples  to  catch  what  they  can."  f 

The  abuse  of  the  principle  links  itself  with  the  allegor- 

*  KOTot  T^jf  avaXoyiav  ttjs  ■Kicrrews,    "according   to  the   JJJ'OJMrtion   of 
faitli." 
f  F.  "W.  Farrar  :   Bampton  Lectures  for  1885. 


EXEGESIS.  43 

ical  metliod,  and  -with  the  want  of  the  historic  sense  in 
interpretation.  It  exaggerates  the  honiogeneousness  of 
Scripture  by  making  every  part  in  every  age  have  direct 
and  designed  reference  to  every  other  part.  It  thus  ig- 
nores historical  perspective,  and  makes  the  Bible  like  an 
Egyptian  mural  painting,  Avliich  is  all  foreground. 

To  strike  at  the  abuse  is  not  to  surrender  the  unity  of 
Scripture.  We  may,  for  instance,  firmly  hold  by  the 
fact  of  Messianic  prophecy  in  the  Old  Testament,  with- 
out, as  was  said  of  Justin  Martyr,  applying  all  the  sticks 
and  pieces  of  wood  in  the  Old  Testament  to  the  cross ; 
without,  like  Clement  of  Rome,  construing  Eahab's  scar- 
let cord  into  a  prophecy  of  redemption  by  blood;  with- 
out, as  Barnabas,  making  the  "tree  planted  by  rivers 
of  water  "  mean  the  cross  and  baptism.  While  the  Bible, 
as  a  whole,  turns  on  Christ,  it  is  even  possible  to  abuse 
Luther's  rule,  that  Christ  is  to  be  found  everywhere  in 
Scripture.  Solomon's  Song  does  not  signify  the  love  of 
Christ  for  His  Church  :  yet  this  exploded  allegorical  in- 
terpretation underlies  its  citation  in  the  "  Westminster 
Confession,"  where  passages  from  it  are  used  as  proof- 
texts  of  the  doctrine  of  "  eftectual  calling,"  and  of  the 
statement  that  true  believers  may  have  the  assurance  of 
their  salvation  shaken  by  God's  withdrawing  the  light  of 
His  countenance."  And,  while  I  am  speaking  of  the 
"  Confession,"  let  me  say  that  the  revision  of  its  proof- 
texts,  already  inaugurated,  should  go  much  deeper  than 
the  insertion  or  omission  of  a  text  here  and  there.  The 
present  system  of  proof-texts  is  framed  according  to  the 
principles  of  interpretation  current  in  1647 ;  and  these 
*  Chap.  X.  sect.  1  ;  chap,  xviii.  sect.  4. 


44  EXEGESIS. 

principles,  and  not  merely  the  individual  texts,  should  be 
examined  and  dealt  with.  When,  as  we  have  seen,  "  ef- 
fectual calling  "  is  argued  from  a  false,  allegorical  inter- 
pretation of  a  passage  in  Canticles;  when  the  "the  wages 
of  sin  is  death,"  and,  "  for  every  idle  word  that  men  shall 
speak,  they  shall  give  account,"  are  cited  in  support  of  the 
statement  that  "  no  sin  is  so  small  but  it  deserves  damna- 
tion ; " ""  Avhen  the  statement  that  all  the  books  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  "are  given  by  inspiration  of  God  to 
be  the  rule  of  faith  and  life,"  appeals  to  Revelation  xxii. 
18,  19,  "  If  any  man  shall  add  unto  these  things,  God 
shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues  that  are  written  in  this 
book,"  etc.;  f  when  the  statement  that  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  originals  of  the  Bible  have  been  "  kept  pure  in  all 
ages  "  is  backed  by  "  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot 
or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be 
fulfilled ; "  -t  when  it  is  deduced  from  "  The  fomidation 
of  God  standeth  sure,  having  this  seal,  the  Lord  knoweth 
them  that  are  His,"  that  the  number  of  the  elect  and  of 
the  reprobate  is  definitely  and  unchangeably  fixed  by  tlie 
divine  decree,  §  it  is  quite  time  that  revision  should  go 
down  to  the  basis  of  interpretation. 

Lastly,  the  subordination  of  exegesis  to  dogma,  the 
baneful  inheritance  from  Augustine,  and  from  the  post- 
Reformation  era.  Here  devout  criticism,  scholarly  intel- 
ligence, and  the  whole  energy  of  the  freedom  with  which 
Christ  makes  free  must  be  concentrated  in  order  to  pre- 
serve the  liberty  of  the  individual  Christian  and  the 
rightful  supremacy  of  Scripture.     I   do  not  imdervalue 

*  Chap.  XV.  sect.  4.  f  t'hap.  i.  sect.  2. 

X  Chap.  i.  sect.  8.  §  Chap.  iii.  sect.  4. 


I 


EXEGESIS.  45 

creeds,  confessions,  and  theologies.  They  have  their 
place  and  their  work,  and  both  are  important ;  but  the 
time  has  fully  come  for  the  roundest  and  most  practical 
assertion  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  infallible  rale 
of  faith  and  practice^ — the  Scriptures  as  I'ead  with  the 
Holy  Spirit's  guidance  and  light,  and  interpreted  accord- 
ing to  the  canons  of  a  reverent  and  scholarly  exegesis  : 
that  no  theological  dogma  is  binding  upon  the  Christian 
conscience,  which  is  not  based  upon  a  fair  and  sound  in- 
terpretation of  Scripture  as  it  stands.  The  time  is  past 
for  the  Church  to  be  held  to  the  horrible  and  unscriptui*- 
al  doctrine  of  a  divine  predestination  of  a  portion  of  man- 
kind to  everlasting  damnation,  by  the  words  "  Jacob 
have  I  loved  and  Esau  have  I  hated,"  and  by  the  ninth, 
tenth,  and  eleventh  chapters  of  Eomans,  which  have  no 
more  to  do  with  divine  predestination  to  eternal  life  or 
death  than  the  Iliad  of  Homer  or  the  Clouds  of  Aris- 
tophanes. 

Union  Seminary  holds  by  the  Bible.  It  exalts  its  au- 
thority ;  it  accepts  that  authority  as  supreme  ;  it  uncom- 
promisingly accepts  the  Bible  as  the  only  infallible  rale 
of  faith  and  practice  ;  as  the  only  legitimate  basis  of 
gospel  preaching  ;  as  containing  the  only  and  sufficient 
revelation  of  Him  whose  name  is  above  every  name — the 
only  Redeemer  of  mankind,  the  Head  of  the  Church. 
Its  faculty  and  its  directors  alike  stake  their  salvation 
on  its  truth.  Wliy  will  the  Church  not  see  that  its 
teachers  are  the  friends  and  the  champions  of  the  Bible, 
and  not  its  carping  critics  ?  That  it  is  because  of  their 
love  and  reverence  for  it,  because  they  see,  better  than 
the  general  religious  public,  the  subtlety,  power,  and  in- 


46  EXEGESIS. 

tellectual  aciTteness  of  the  attacks  aimed  at  it,  that  they 
are  trying  to  save  it  from  the  wounds  of  its  friends,  from 
modes  of  defence  which  only  expose  it  to  deadlier 
thrusts ;  trying  to  let  the  divine  inspiration  which  is  in 
it  vindicate  its  own  power  and  majesty ;  trying  to  put  its 
interj^retation  upon  a  basis  which  will  successfully  resist 
the  shocks  of  a  godless  rationalism  ? 

It  shall  be,  as  it  ever  has  been,  the  delight  and  the 
j)ride  of  Union  Seminary  to  magnify  the  Bible  before  the 
eyes  of  men,  and  to  assert  its  principles  and  its  personal, 
divine  centre,  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  solution  of  all  the  great 
world  problems,  the  mould  and  the  inspiration  of  perfect 
character,  the  basis  of  a  perfect  society. 

It  recognizes  the  need  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  aid  and  light 
in  the  study  of  the  Word.  It  has  no  sympathy  with  a 
cold  and  purely  intellectual  and  scholastic  criticism. 
But  it  will  continue  to  stand,  as  it  has  stood  from  the 
fii'st,  for  the  largest  liberty  of  interpretation ;  for  the 
claim  of  scholarly  exegesis  to  a  respectful  hearing ;  for 
the  right  to  limit  to  matters  of  faith  and  duty  its  subscrip- 
tion to  the  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  and  authority  of 
Scripture  ;  for  a  square,  brave  facing  of  the  jjlain  mean- 
ing of  Scripture ;  for  the  ascertainment  and  establishment 
of  the  objective  historical  sense  of  the  Bible  as  against 
mere  subjective  speculations ;  for  the  Bible  first,  and  con- 
fessions after  the  Bible. 

In  the  eloquent  words  of  the  beloved  and  lamented 
Meyer :  "  It  is  just  when  exegetical  research  is  perfectly 
unprejudiced,  impartial,  and  free — and  thus  all  the  more 
consciously  and  consistently  guided  simply  and  solely  by 
those  historically-given  factors  of  its  science — that  it  is 


EXEGESIS.  47 

able  with  genuine  humility  to  render  to  the  Church,  so 
far  as  the  latter  maintains  its  palladium  in  the  pure  word 
of  God,  real  and  wholesome  service  for  the  present  and 
the  future.  However  deep  may  be  the  heavings  of  con- 
flicting elements  within  it,  and  however  long  may  be  the 
diu'ation  of  the  painful  throes  which  shall  at  last  issue  in 
a  happier  time  for  the  Chiu'ch,  when  men's  minds  shall 
have  attained  a  higher  union,  the  pure  word  of  Script- 
ure, in  its  historical  truth  and  clearness,  and  in  its 
world-subduing,  divine  might,  disengaged  from  every 
addition  of  human  scholasticism  and  its  dividing  for- 
mulae, must  and  shall  at  length  become  once  more  a 
wonderful  power  of  peace  unto  unity  of  faith  and  love." "''' 

*  Introduction  to  the  Commentary  on  Romans. 


•V  -s   n  Ni 

QBXNiyd 

m 

•*i 

li»!««?i^ 

«*i«£ta«i»Ma««>-_- 

,               ,    ,.  . 

-  '4m& 

>** 

iKntMM^ 

11^  11 

w 

' 

-,«,--— ^ 

•-•«3i^ 

y^Mgaii^'; 

ana  a^BQ 


•V  's  -n  Ni 


a^fit^^tSSSL 


«*;(»&a»j<«**<.»r^ 


iiei«Sg  iiie'*"*^  ^*'^- ■  ' 


«Hiii 


'iui^tamaftSiMMfmm-. 


ana  a;Bci 


'  y. 


BS476  .V77 

Exegisis :  an  address  delivered  at  the 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


& 


hm\ 


'%T 


k. 


